The Student and the Tree

By: Tierney Bowden

In the UC Merced student play, “Fire, Water, Poison, Hope: California in 2023”, there is a monologue told from the perspective of a UC Merced student talking about her connection to a tree next to her house. She talks about placing her hand next to a branch of the tree and asking it to move for her and it actually does. She then proceeds to ask it to move its other branches and it does it again for her. In our class, we learned about the kinship ties between humans and nature and this monologue reminded me of those kinship ties. The student being portrayed in the monologue feels a connection to the tree next to her house and even talks to it by the end of the scene. This is similar to the way many Native cultures view nature. In the fables we read, nature gets a voice and can speak back to the humans in the stories. In the monologue, the tree can understand the student and respond back to her with movements. Both the fables and the monologue portray nature as something living and not as objects which brings the audience to wonder about the nature they see every day. This creates sympathy for the nature around them and leads to conversations about how we can save the living nature around us.

I am no woman, I am no snake.

Written by: Tierney Bowden

I am no woman, I am no snake.

I am ambiguous, beyond need for a name.

I birthed four slithering children,

Yet my body remained unchanged.

But still, I felt a discrepancy.

My body and soul were not the same.

I am no woman, I am no snake.

My parents wept and begged me to stay.

“This is the last you will ever see me again.”

My mother held me – refused to estrange.

She shook me and screamed,

But I did not remain.

I am no woman, I am no snake.

And so, my story continues on.

But filled with many questions,

Like who I was or where I’ve gone.

Review: 

I chose to rewrite the ending of “The Girl Who Married Rattlesnake” as a poem because it was the most interesting story from Erdoes and Ortiz’s American Indian Myths and Legends. I found the ambiguity of what happened to the girl and the question of “Did she turn into a snake?” to be intriguing. We had talked about it in class and I recall some of my classmates believing that the girl really did turn into a snake, but we’ll never really know. So, I decided I wanted to write a poem that had a similar ambiguous ending. I am a really big fan of poetry, so that was the main reason I chose to write in this style. I also think that poetry is inherently ambiguous. There are so many ways to interpret different poems even when the author may have thought they were being straightforward. So, a poem was the perfect way to stress the ambiguity of the ending. 

Along with emphasizing the ambiguity of the ending, I wanted to make the story more memorable. I really liked the line on page 398 where the rattlesnake’s wife tells her children she is, “not really human any longer,”. This is a line that stuck with me after my first read, but I felt it could’ve been even more memorable. So, I chose to repeat the phrase “I am no woman, I am no snake” which is slightly reminiscent of Mowgli being a man-cub from Kipling’s The Jungle Book. 

Overall, I really liked how the story ended and I didn’t want to change any of the plot. This is why I chose not to parody, but to rewrite the ending in a different format. It took me a while to write and I am still not completely satisfied, but I think this feeling of dissatisfaction adds to the ambiguity I was trying to mimic.

The Way of Water or The Way of Family?

In Hannes Bergthaller’s essay “A Sense of No-Place: Avatar and the Pitfalls of Ecocentric Identification”, they argue that James Cameron’s goal of connecting his viewers to the environment and to themselves actually does the opposite due to the sheer aestheticism of the film. However, I would argue that Avatar: The Way of Water does not pull the viewer away from reality nearly as much as the first film. In the long-awaited Avatar sequel, the audience is thrust into the familial life of Jake Sully and Neytiri among the Na’avi people. Jake knows the language, the cultural practices, and is comfortable walking around with very minimal clothing. The Na’avi people accept him as their leader and listen to what he says without question. However, these are all details that were established after watching the first film. Jake is no longer trying to, “heal the split between [himself] and [the] environment,” (Bergthaller). Instead, he is trying to navigate the struggles of being a father, which is why there is less emphasis placed on immersing the viewer within Pandora and more emphasis on dialogue and interactions between the characters. While Avatar focused on the beauty of Pandora’s natural world, its sequel heavily relied on character development which in turn does not reinforce the argument Bergthaller was able to make about the first film. There is no, “split between subject and object,” (Bergthaller). So many people can relate to being parents or being children of parents and the complicated relationships that may form from being in a familial dynamic. Therefore, the film actually pulls the viewer closer and manages to succeed in healing the so-called ‘split’ between the art and the art viewer. Although one of the film’s plots does focus on environmental injustice, the overkilling of Pandora’s whale-like creatures, it felt like more of an afterthought; as if because Avatar was an ecocentric film, it was a necessary inclusion to make the sequel match the franchise’s values. However, it was definitely not the main focus of the film.

By: Tierney Bowden

Fear and Wild Instincts

Throughout the novel, there were a variety of instances that prove man’s presupposed mastery over the Law of the Jungle. In “How Fear Came”, Shere Khan demanded Mowgli to meet his gaze but immediately, “turned away uneasily,” (149). Although Mowgli was raised among animals and considered himself to be an animal, it didn’t stop the inherent fear the animals had for man. Not only did Shere Khan see that Mowgli was really just a man, but so did his own pack. In “Letting the Jungle Know”, Bagheera acknowledges that man killing another man is, “‘bad hunting,’” (180). Mowgli can be a part of the pack all he wants, but the animals know that if another man encountered him, he wouldn’t be hunted as they would. Shere Khan’s fear and Bagheera’s acknowledgment prove that Mowgli may live in the jungle, but he is not a part of the jungle. No matter how one may argue that he is in a gray area, at the end of the day Mowgli will always be a human. Just as if a tiger were raised from a cub to being fully grown with humans, it would still keep its wild instincts. No matter how long Mowgli lived with the animals, he would never be able to become one. When Mowgli tried to stab Akela’s paw, Akela moved it in an instant and said that he, “‘could have killed a buck while [he] wast striking,’” (178). Although Mowgli has been living with the animals for so long he has not gained their wild instincts. He will always be a man. That’s why the animals call him “man-cub”. Even they acknowledge that he is not just a cub. The word “man” is placed in front of the word “cub” symbolizing that he will always be man first. The animals will always fear him, even if they could easily kill him, and he will never have the instincts of the other animals.

By: Tierney Bowden

Animal or State? pg.26

A state believes itself to be superior to animals because it is a state. It has the power to exploit animals in a variety of different ways and because of this, it views itself as superior. However, states are figuratively viewed as animal-like, or even beast-like. This creates the contradiction of a state being superior to animals while still being an animal.

By: Tierney Bowden

Buffalo and Human Kinship

“Trust, consensuality, transparency, reciprocity, and accountability,” are all important qualities for kinship to have according to Kyle Whyte (2020). From American Indian Myths and Legends, the story titled, “The Great Race,” explores a cross-species kinship between animals and humans in the form of a race to decide who will be the most powerful. Both sides agree that they will choose their fastest runners, but the humans are allowed to be represented by birds because, “‘they have wings, [and buffalos] have four legs, [so] that makes it more even,’” (390). This compromise demonstrates accountability because the buffalo acknowledges that it is at an advantage and decides to give the humans a fair chance to win the race. There is a kinship here because although both sides want to win, they don’t want to win unfairly. Once the humans win the race they, “have respected the magpie, never hunting it or eating it…[and they] have hunted the buffalo for food,” (392). The magpie and humans demonstrate the quality of reciprocity because they are acting in a way that benefits them both. The magpie raced for the humans and won, which then led to the humans never hunting the magpies for food or sport. This mutual benefit demonstrates the kinship between animals and humans when there is a mutual benefit. However, the buffalo are now being eaten by people. 

At the beginning of the story, it is stated that, “neither people nor animals, ate flesh,” (390). Knowing that the story ends with humans being more powerful than all other animals and how they get to eat them feels very anthropocentric. Although the humans won this power fairly, they still are now allowed to eat the flesh of animals. So in the end, the animals got the short end of the stick, even if a few birds helped the humans take the win.

By: Tierney Bowden

The Rabbit versus the Horse

In The Case of Animals versus Man, there is an illogical argument made by the rabbit in chapter 5, “The Animals Charge Humans with Oppression”. The rabbit argues that dogs and hunting birds have an excuse to aid men because they are carnivores. However, the horse is not a carnivore. Instead, it’s the horse’s, “ignorance, [and] stupidity–[that causes its] failure to grasp the true nature of things,” (164). The argument started off logically because carnivorous animals cannot be blamed for what they must eat to survive. They have to eat other animals to get the nutrients and energy they need. The horse, however, does not eat meat so it should not have any need to side with the humans. This is where the rabbit’s argument begins to stray away from logic. The rabbit decides to attack the character of the horse and blames its stupidity on why it helps humans. Instead of coming up with a real, logical argument the rabbit goes for the easiest explanation. This is interesting because the horse seems to be the only animal that is dumbed down. Horses are normally revered for being smart and having a lot of personality. So, there is irony in how the rabbit views the horse versus how horses are perceived by human society.

By: Tierney Bowden

Who is the real King of the Jungle?

When it comes to the animal hierarchy, the lion is often considered the king of the jungle. There are a variety of films, television shows, and novels that have cemented lions with this title. Some of the earliest stories involving the lion date back to the times of the ancient Greeks, when Aesop’s fables were written. In these fables, the lion serves as a powerful, authoritative figure that often abuses its power to prey on weaker animals. This dynamic leads to moral lessons that place the lion in a negative light and make the animals the lions interact with the victim. However, this is only true when the lion interacts with other animals. In fables involving humans and lions, the lion is no longer in a position of power. Instead, it is pushed down the animal hierarchy and humans are placed at the top. The lion becomes the victim and the moral lesson at the end of the fable critiques the flaws of man rather than the lion. This leads to the question of what this implies of human morals and animal morals. Although in their own separate fables, the lion and the ploughman are both portrayed as the negative character, when placed in a fable together the human always is the one portrayed negatively. Aesop’s fables on ploughmen and lions criticize the anthropocentric belief that humans are superior to other animals, and supports the idea that animals are moral patients who cannot be blamed for their behaviors; however, the fables only focus on the negative aspects of human morality rather than the good.

By: Tierney Bowden

Big and Greedy Fox

In Aesop’s fable, “The Fox with a Swollen Stomach,” there is a deviation between the moral message and the fable being told. When I first read the fable, I assumed it would be about greed because the fox ate so much it couldn’t get out of the hollowed tree. Instead, the moral is about, “time resolving difficulties,” (Aesop 26). This moral doesn’t make sense for a couple of reasons. First, the fox was exhibiting traits of greed by consuming so much food it got a swollen stomach. It would make more sense for it to consume just enough to not be hungry anymore and then be able to slip in and out of the hollow tree whenever it got hungry. Second, if the fox waited until it was small to leave the tree, it would end up being hungry again which would cause the issue all over again. So, how can time solve everything in the case of this fable?

This particular fable and moral does not demonstrate any environmental justice and actually seems to be doing the opposite. Assuming that everything gets better with time is not something that can be applied to environmental justice, considering how fast our environments are deteriorating. If we sit idly by and assume that, in time, everything will get better, we will only watch our planet get worse. Steve Cooke makes it very clear that humans are “moral agents” which means we are responsible for protecting and saving our environment. If we followed the moral of the fable, there would be no resolve instead there would be more difficulties.

By: Tierney Bowden